<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div>Possibly, if differences in word tenses and things of that sort at considered the same word. I haven't figured that out yet. </div>
<br>
<hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%" tabindex="-1">
<div id="divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font face="Calibri, sans-serif" style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000"><b>From:</b> carla calcagno <cccalcagno@gmail.com><br>
<b>Sent:</b> Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:57 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> For trademark practitioners. This is not for laypersons to seek legal advice. <e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com><br>
<b>Cc:</b> diana lo-dp.com <diana@lo-dp.com><br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: [E-trademarks] competing volume of evidence question</font>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div dir="auto">Are these inherently weak or diluted marks? <br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Sent from my iPhone</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Feb 8, 2024, at 2:35 PM, diana lo-dp.com via E-trademarks <e-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><span class="x_elementToProof" style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">Interested in whether anyone has successfully persuaded TTAB that their volume of evidence in
a 2(d) outweighs the examiner's. Overall issue is that the USPTO appears to have inconsistent practice history. Examiner has refused registration because an identical mark exists in another class, and there are a variety examples of companies providing both
types of goods. On the other hand, there are a substantial number of counter-examples of coexistence, i.e., Company 1 sells goods in one of the classes, Company 2 sells goods in the other class, mark is identical, and they coexist, without 2(d) ever being
issued. Examiner has issued 2(d) and is sticking by it, indicating that not bound by what other examiner do. The evidence in terms of USPTO records is conflicting, and the USPTO practice is inconsistent, with many records on both sides. Does something like
this get resolved on each examiner's whim, or is there something more predictable and orderly? Thank you!</span></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)"><br>
</span></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">Diana Palchik</span></div>
<div class="x_elementToProof"><span style="font-family:Aptos,Aptos_EmbeddedFont,Aptos_MSFontService,Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size:12pt; color:rgb(0,0,0)">palchik.net</span></div>
<span>-- </span><br>
<span>E-trademarks mailing list</span><br>
<span>E-trademarks@oppedahl-lists.com</span><br>
<span>http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/e-trademarks_oppedahl-lists.com</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</body>
</html>